This is a good example of how well Digital ICE works with Kodachrome.
Documented problems with Digital ICE and Kodachrome are that SOMETIMES
detail is lost when the IR "sees" cyan dye. Of course, cyan dye is present
in dark parts of the image as well as pure cyan parts. I'm sure I've
mentioned this example before of a dark blue hat with yellow lettering. The
lettering was the only visible detail that was blurred. Looking at these
images, the dark eyelashes don't appear to be blurred at all.
That is why I recommend that you TRY Digital ICE on every image. If you have
blurring as I did with the hat, you can scan it twice and put both scans on
different layers in one image and "brush" the detail back into the image. In
this example, that is not necessary.
One of the reasons images that have been through the Digital ICE process
appear less sharp is because many times the "sharpest" parts of an image are
the defects! When the defects are removed, the image "appears" less sharp.
When actual test targets are processed with Digital ICE we find no
difference in sharpness.
I would be curious to see how Digital ROC affects the color fidelity and
overall image quality in your tests. Many times it does wonders with images
that don't appear to be faded.
Happy New Year everyone!
Jack Phipps
Applied Science Fiction
ok, here's the comparison of VS v NS using the LS4000ED, with positive and
negative examples:
It seems to me that VueScan wins hands down for color fidelity and overall
image quality, but NikonScan is ever so slightly better than VS for IR
cleaning, especially for (positive) slides. Personally I'm staying with VS
for everything unless a slide is very dirty, in which case I'll use NS and
spend the time trying to match VS's color fidelity in PS.
--
-szt
Stephen Z. Turney
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe' in the
title or body
